Horine v. Bone
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Barry Circuit Cou/rt. — Hon. J. O. Lamson, Judge. Every substantive fact which plaintiff must prove to maintain his action, should be alleged. Harrison v. B. B., 50 Mo. App. 332; Mfg. Co.v. School District, 54 Id. 371. If plaintiff had waived the tort, and based his cause of action on an implied contract, then he should have set forth the facts from which the promise is inferred bylaw.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Barry Circuit Cou/rt. — Hon. J. O. Lamson, Judge. Every substantive fact which plaintiff must prove to maintain his action, should be alleged. Harrison v. B. B., 50 Mo. App. 332; Mfg. Co.v. School District, 54 Id. 371. If plaintiff had waived the tort, and based his cause of action on an implied contract, then he should have set forth the facts from which the promise is inferred bylaw. Pom. on Rem. [2 Ed.], sec. 568; Bird v. Meyer, 6 Wis. 362. The testimony of the witness that Easly gave no “marked evidence of receiving benefits” from the farm, and the testimony as to what…
1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.
This suit was begun by the curator of an insane person. Upon the death of these persons it was revived in the name of the present plaintiff, the public administrator. The statement of account is as follows:
1883. To 1-3 of 20 acres corn or 200 bushels at 25 cents...... $50 00
1883. To 1-2 of 14 acres hay or 14 tons, at $7.00.............. 98 00
1884. To 1-3 of 600 bushels corn, or 200 bushels, at 25 cents ____ 50 00
1884. To 1-2 of 12 acres hay, or 12 tons, at $7.00............... 84 00
1885. To 1-3 of 263 1-2 bushels wheat or 87 1-2 bushels, at 75…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Knipper v. BlumenthalSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Ross v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mohr v. LanganMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- State ex rel. Clark v. ParsonsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905